While Electronic Arts made the adjustment to rename the Taliban to “Opposing Force” in the multiplayer part of Medal of Honor, a ban on the game appearing in GameStop stores located in Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) locations is still in place.

The decision by AAFES officials puzzled a Stars & Striped columnist, who inventoried other violent games available in AAFES locations, such as Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and Grand Theft Auto IV.

The story quotes one soldier, an “avid gamer” named Marine Cpl. Aaron Hostutler, as stating that the ban was most likely made by “a commander who doesn’t play video games and hasn’t caught up with the times yet.”

Hostutler continued:

In ‘Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2,’ you can play as several different countries’ forces and often you’re playing against and killing Marines or our allies. I don’t understand how ‘Medal of Honor’ is any different.

The Marine also noted that AAFES stores also sell booze and tobacco, “substances that actually hurt people when they choose to use it.”

An EA spokesperson said about the ban, “EA has not asked for, and does not expect, a change in the Defense Department's decision to restrict the availability of Medal of Honor on bases.”

Comments

They won't sell a game based on actual events that looks like it's done tastefully where American troops fight Taliban forces, but it's perfectly fine to sell a game where a huge chunk of players cause chaos for fun and shoot soldiers for no reason other than joy?

Not that I'm doubting you, but, what game would you be referring to? I ask mainly because nothing comes to mind outside of GTA: III (I remember being able to blow away soldiers in that game, though it wasn't exactly a piece of cake either), since I don't really gravitate towards games of that ilk, I guess.

Alcohol may kill people, including those in the service, but it doesn't have a face or eyes, or do anything on it's own.

At least, that's my explanation, and it makes perfect sense to me. I don't really agree with the notion that MOH deserves such hatred, but I can't necessarily blame anyone for not being thrilled, especially the military. Plenty of people in the service know someone who got killed by a Taliban fighter or the like.

When Amercia's involvement in conflicts in the Middle East is a good fifty to sixty years behind us, being able to play as a terrorist probably won't stir up nearly as much furor.

It's not the men and women on the ground that have raised their voices about Medal of Honor; it's the people in charge of AAFES. The folks on the front lines have been told that they're fighting for freedom, so the in defense of freedom, they'd like to see freedom of any kind being respected back home. Armed forces that are trained to kill tend to not whine about what things are called. It's the armchair generals and bureaucrats who want to show off their feathers.

That said, I'm annoyed by the comments that depict EA's renaming of Taliban to Opposing Forces as EA being pressured by DOD. That was EA's choice. In the defense industry, companies regularly tell their government customers to shove it when the government requests something that's not part of their contracts. One long-time defense worker told me, "If EA was a defense company, they would told the DOD to **** off." DOD was very impressed with EA for obliging their request.

EA's action was also very smart for a number of reasons. The best reason why EA's response was smart is because it headed off a PR nightmare for the upcoming SCOTUS case. Nobody wanted the politicians to drag video games through the mud, shouting about how the video game industry is unpatriotic, anti-American, and disrespectful to the military and military families while we were trying to protect video games from regulation. EA shut that down. Yeah, Ian Bogost might have a point that EA didn't help the freedom of expression argument, but quite frankly, EA exercised its freedom, too--its freedom to restrain its expression and protect its business.

Oh I agree that EA was simply being tactful. Though I haven't explicitly stated it until now, I do feel that the Taliban-playing option in MOH was in poor taste, and altering it was a business decision that I agree with, much as I recognize and disapprove of the double-standard being applied, both for games in general and for that game in particular.

Basically, EA's decision was appropriate, but I will always feel it never should've been a big deal.

It's the armchair generals and bureaucrats who want to show off their feathers.

Regardless, that wouldn't be happening without American soldiers fighting and dying in the Middle East. That was my whole point.

Shout box

Infophile: @Matt: Apparently Dan Aykroyd actually is involved. We don't know how yet, though, but he's apparently going to be in the movie in some way.08/02/2015 - 4:17am

Mattsworkname: I still hold that not having the origonal cast invovled in any way hurts this movie, and unless the 4 actresses in the lead roles can some how measure up to the comic timing of the origonal cast, i just don't see it being a success08/02/2015 - 12:46am

Mattsworkname: Mecha: regardless of what you think of it, GB 2 was a finanical success and for it time did well with audiances ,even if it wasnt as popular as the first08/02/2015 - 12:45am

MechaTama31: I think they're better off trying to do something different, than trying to be exactly the same and having every little difference held up as a shortcoming. Uncanny valley.08/01/2015 - 11:57pm

MechaTama31: Having the original cast didn't do much for... that pink-slimed atrocity which we must never speak of.08/01/2015 - 11:56pm

Mattsworkname: Andrew: If the new ghostbusters bombs, I cant help but feel it'll be cause it removed the origonal cast and changed the formula to much08/01/2015 - 8:31pm

Andrew Eisen: Not the best look but that appears to be a PKE meter hanging from McCarthy's belt.08/01/2015 - 7:34pm

Mattsworkname: You know what game is a lot of fun? rocket league. It' s a soccer game thats actually fun to play cause your A Freaking CAR!08/01/2015 - 7:02pm

Mattsworkname: Nomad colossus did a little video about it, showing the world and what can be explored in it's current form. It's worth a look, and he uses text for commentary as not to break the immerison08/01/2015 - 5:49pm

Mattsworkname: I feel some more mobility would have made it more interesting and I feel that a larger more diverse landscape with better graphiscs would help, but as a concept, it interests me08/01/2015 - 5:48pm

Andrew Eisen: Huh. I guess I'll have to check out a Let's Play to get a sense of the game.08/01/2015 - 5:47pm

Mattsworkname: It did, I found the idea of exploring a world at it's end, exploring the abandoned city of a disappeared alien race and the planets various knooks and crannies intriqued me.08/01/2015 - 5:46pm

Andrew Eisen: Did it appeal to you? If so, what did you find appealing?08/01/2015 - 5:43pm

Mattsworkname: Its an interesting concept, but it's not gonna appeal to everyone thats for sure,08/01/2015 - 5:40pm

Andrew Eisen: That sounds horrifically boring. Doesn't sound like an interesting use of its time dilation premise either. 08/01/2015 - 5:36pm

Mattsworkname: an observer , seeing this sorta frozen world and being able to explore without any restriction other then time. no enimes, no threats, just the chance to explore08/01/2015 - 5:34pm